> On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 at 23:32, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 at 16:44, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 22 March 2018 at 23:25, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Here is the updated version of patch, rebased after recent conflicts and with > > > suggested documentation improvements. > > > > Another rebased version of the patch. > > I've noticed, that I never updated llvmjit code for the arrayref expressions, > and it's important to do so, since the patch introduces another layer of > flexibility. Hence here is the new version.
Here is another rebased version, and a bit of history: the first prototypes of this patch were sent more than 3 years ago. Of course the patch evolved significantly over this period, and I take it as a good sign that it wasn't rejected and keeps moving through the commitfests. At the same time the lack of attention makes things a bit frustrating. I have an impression that it's sort of regular situation and wonder if there are any ideas (besides the well known advice of putting some efforts into review patches from other people, since I'm already doing my best and enjoying this) how to make progress in such cases?
This feature looks nice, and it can be great when some values of some not atomic type should be updated.
